Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 29 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Held that:- goods CR strips which are claimed by the appellant to have been sold to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries, had been procured by them from M/s. Ayushi Steel. and also M/s. Ayushi Steel. would have procured the same from M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles. But the investigation at the end of M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles clearly shows that there was no manufacturing activity at their end and they have only issued bogus invoices for CR sheets/strips to M/s. Ayushi Steel. without supply of any goods. When the first chain of transaction between the manufacturer M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles and the first stage dealer M/s. Ayushi Steel is bogus, the subsequent transaction would also be bogus and therefore, it is for the appellant M/s. Nidhi Enterprises to prove as to from where the material (CR strips/sheets)claimed to have been supplied to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries had been procured. When the transaction between M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles and first stage dealer M/s. Ayushi Steel were bogus, and when M/s. Ayushi Steel are supposed to have sold the material procured from M/s. Pasondia Steel Profiles to M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises are supposed to have sold the same material to M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries, the transaction between M/s. Ayushi Steel. and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries would also be bogus transaction and the burden to prove that these transactions are not bogus would be on M/s. Nidhi Enterprises and M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries. No evidence in this regard has been produced by M/s. Nidhi Enterprises that they had indeed received the CR strips from M/s. Ayushi Steel. In view of this, I hold that transaction between the appellant and M/s. Rasandik Engineering Industries are bogus transaction and appellant has issued bogus invoices without supply of any material and not only this, they have also taken Cenvat credit wrongly in a fraudulent manner on the basic of bogus invoices of M/s Ayushi Steels. penalty is imposable on the appellant. However, since the quantum of Cenvat credit involved is ₹ 98,813/-, which has already been reversed, the penalty on the appellant is reduced to ₹ 30,000 - Decided partly in favour of assesse.
|